Dr. Gerard M. Nadal: Science in Service of the Pro-Life Movement

Posts Tagged ‘Jill Stanek’

On December 24, 2009 Pro-life nurse/blogger/speaker/activist/apostle, Jill Stanek, gave me the Christmas gift of a lifetime. After having encouraged and even insisted that I start my own blog, Jill promoted it on her own extremely popular blog. See it here.

For those who may not know, Jill was the Ob/Gyn nurse who broke open wide the issue of babies born alive and left to die. Some are from botched abortions, some having severe congenital anomalies. In insisting that this issue come into the light it cost Jill her livelihood as a nurse. If there is anyone more detestable in medicine than a whistleblower, it’s a Christian, pro-life whistleblower. Jill abandoned the peace and economic surety of a solid nursing career to follow the lead of the Holy Spirit into the wilderness of the life issues. Like Peter and the other apostles who left their fishermen’s nets to follow Jesus, Jill left it all behind and never looked back.

In that time, Jill jumped into the emerging world of blogging, recognizing the internet as the new town square for the shrinking global village. She has gathered under her roof at Jillstanek.com every activist, physician, scientist, clergy person with a positive program and promoted their work. She has become a hub of news and information. When Twitter emerged, Jill jumped right on board and has used the medium to mount several successful campaigns against the abortion industry.

All during that time, she has crisscrossed the nation and traveled the globe in her apostolic mission to end abortion and restore a culture of life and a civilization of love. Those of us who do so know the toll this takes on our family lives and on our finances. In all of that time Jill has never asked for support for her blog, and following her example neither have I. However, today Jill has posted on her blog a very modest request for support. Read it here. It is the first time in her blog’s eight years that she has done so. If she’s asking, then there is good reason.

I would humbly ask that those reading this consider lending support for Jill’s ongoing and indefatigable work in ending this horrendous scourge of abortion. Click the link to her site, read her request, consider how incredibly modest her request is (compared to many who always ask for as much as you can possibly afford), and then prayerfully consider your response.

I am only one of many, many people with whom Jill Stanek has been completely generous with her time and resources.

Jill Stanek has written two brilliant articles in World Net Daily, detailing Susan G. Komen Foundation’s multi-million dollar donations to Planned Parenthood. They are presented here.

(Part I) PLANNED PARENTHOOD DEEPENS LINK TO BREAST CANCER GROUP

The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation had noble beginnings, launched by Nancy Goodman Brinker in response to a promise she made to her dying sister, Susan Goodman Komen, to do all she could to eradicate breast cancer. Komen succumbed to the disease in 1980 at age 36. Nancy went on to contract the disease herself and is now a survivor.

SGK has a noble mission, “to save lives and end breast cancer forever.”

But for years pro-lifers have opposed contributing to SGK because it not only denies that induced abortions may cause breast cancer, it also bestows financial grants to Planned Parenthood affiliates.

Pro-lifers believe that for all the good SGK does, it shoots its mission in both feet by refusing to educate women about the abortion-breast cancer link while funding the United States’ largest abortion provider.

Disregarding decades of worldwide studies concluding there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, logic alone says abortion increases the risk.

On its website, SGK acknowledges that childbearing protects women from breast cancer, and the more children a mother bears and the younger she begins bearing them the better. SGK also acknowledges breast-feeding protects against breast cancer.

But abortion blocks all those preventative measures.

Only last week a new study got lots of press that found breast cancer survivors lower their risk of dying by 42 percent simply by getting pregnant.

But abortion blocks that protection.

SGK acknowledges never having children increases a woman’s risk of getting breast cancer, and delaying childbearing, particularly after age 35, also increases the risk.

And abortion increases the risk of both those risks.

Logic.

It would seem logical that with all the controversy surrounding abortion’s role in breast cancer, SGK would simply back away from involvement with it in any way if wanting to stay true to its mission “to save lives and end breast cancer forever.”

That would include SGK’s relationship with Planned Parenthood.

But SGK is not backing away. Between 2003 and 2008, SGK gave $3 million to Planned Parenthood. In Fiscal Year 2008 alone, Planned Parenthood got $805,000 from SGK.

SGK now has a webpage dedicated to defending its involvement with Planned Parenthood, including message points and a letter from a “pro-life Catholic.”

Most recently added to the webpage, in March, was an open letter from SGK’s chief scientific adviser quoting two Catholic ethicists who “concluded that it was morally permissible for the church to be involved with Komen in light of its funding agreements with Planned Parenthood … specifically and solely for breast health services. …”

SGK maintains there are certain places in the United States where Planned Parenthood is the sole provider of breast-cancer screening, education and treatment.

I don’t believe it, but that is SGK’s defense. Even if so, is it really “morally permissible” to cause breast cancer in one room if screening for it in the next?

Three days ago a diligent pro-lifer in Washington state discovered on Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest’s IRS 990 forms that it has held a 12.5 percent share in Metro Centre, a mall in Peoria, Ill., since 2006.

PPGNW is Washington’s largest abortion provider. (It is also currently under investigation for Medicaid fraud.)

Metro Centre is owned by Eric Brinker.

Eric Brinker is the son of Nancy Goodman Brinker, the founder of SGK. Eric also sits on SGK’s board.

Eric was a stand-up guy and responded to most of my initial questions. He explained in an e-mail, “This share represents a minority, non-operating interest in the business which they inherited from one of the original shareholders, a resident of Peoria. I, Eric Brinker, have controlling interest in Metro Centre.”

But when I pursued follow-up questions, Eric wrote he was no longer available.

So there is much still unanswered. Why didn’t PPGNW cash in its inheritance? Why didn’t Eric buy? If the share was willed, it was worth something. The real-estate market was thriving in 2006. It appears both partners are OK with this now four-year-old business partnership.

Eric wrote in his e-mail only “20 of Komen’s 122 U.S. Affiliates fund breast-health services through local Planned Parenthood clinics.” SGK states the total money given represents “less than one percent of the total granted by affiliates.”

My question then is why bother? Why play with fire?

Whatever, the fact remains that the son of the founder of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, who is also a member of the board, owns a business – a mall – together with a Planned Parenthood affiliate.

In my previous column, I revealed that the son of the founder of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation is in a joint business venture with Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest.

Located in Washington state, PPGNW holds a 12.5 percent share of the Metro Centre mall in Peoria, Ill., where Nancy Goodman Brinker’s son Eric Brinker maintains “controlling interest,” according to an e-mail he sent me.

Eric is also a Komen board member.

This only matters because Komen refuses to acknowledge the link between abortion and breast cancer while it insists on bestowing grants to affiliates of the United States’ largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.

That Eric Brinker is in business with one of those affiliates thickens the plot.

Brinker wrote me that only “20 of Komen’s 122 U.S. affiliates fund breast health services through local Planned Parenthood clinics.”

Coincidentally, two of those 20, Komen Puget Sound and Komen Boise, fund Brinker’s business partner, PPGNW.

Komen has gone to quite a bit of trouble to protect what it claims is an infinitesimal relationship with Planned Parenthood.

Stating Planned Parenthood receives “less than 1 percent” of its donations, Komen now has a webpage, message points and a dispensation letter from a Catholic named Norman dedicated to sanctioning their relationship.

Why? If there were even the remotest chance abortion causes breast cancer, which several worldwide studies conducted over the course of many decades confirm, wouldn’t a responsible breast-cancer foundation back away from any risk of facilitating it?

Eric wrote in his e-mail to me, in bold, “There is no conclusive link between abortion and breast cancer.” “Conclusive,” interesting. Was Eric subtly acknowledging there is an inconclusive link?

Eric also wrote that Komen only funds Planned Parenthood “in areas where Planned Parenthood clinics are the only venue for women to receive breast screenings.” He and other Komen officials I spoke with stressed these are in underprivileged areas.

That this may be true is only because Planned Parenthood locates clinics in poor and minority areas specifically to control their populations through contraception and abortion. Komen merely corroborates this fact.

But that is no excuse to partner with Planned Parenthood. Early detection of breast cancer through screening should not be the goal. Prevention should be the goal.

All five PPGNW Planned Parenthoods involved with Komen either commit or refer for abortions. All dispense birth-control pills and emergency contraceptives.

Which leads to another point. Komen states on its website:

A large analysis that combined the results of many studies found that while women were taking birth-control pills (and shortly thereafter), they had a 10 to 30 percent higher risk of breast cancer than women who had never used birth-control pills.
(Column continues below)

As for the emergency contraceptive pill, which contains 10-15 times the amount of artificial hormones as a single birth-control pill, its labeling states it is contraindicated if one has a current or past history of breast cancer.

In fact, it appears hormonal contraceptives are more seriously implicated in breast cancer than previously known.

In 2009 a study published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention showed that the risk for women under 40 of contracting a newly identified and virulent form of the disease called triple-negative breast cancer rose by 320 percent if using hormonal contraceptives for a year or more.

That same study, co-authored in part by two of the very National Cancer Institute researchers who in 2003 denied a link between abortion and breast cancer, also acknowledged a 40 percent increased risk of contracting breast cancer under the age of 40 if a woman had had an abortion.

So there are several reasons for Komen to part company with Planned Parenthood.

A final point. Tragically, Susan Goodman Komen was only 33 years old when contracting breast cancer, and she died three years later. Her sister Nancy contracted breast cancer at age 39. She is now a 25-year survivor.

Both were under 40.

Would recognition that one’s reproductive history may be implicated in breast cancer be too hard to handle within the upper echelon of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation?

Two of the paper’s authors are noteworthy. Dr. Louise Brinton chaired the infamous 203 National Cancer Institute panel that declared no link between abortion and breast cancer, dismissing a good number of retrospective studies indicating otherwise in favor of premature analyses of prospective (longitudinal) studies whose subjects lacked sufficient time to have developed breast cancer. The decisiveness of this linkage denial, dismissing a body of sound, mature data in favor of data not yet ripened was stunning.

The other author in question is Dr. Kathi Malone, who dismisses the significance of her own paper, stating, “There are no new findings related to induced abortion in this paper because the results of these women were published previously.” These words need to be considered in light of the paper’s own clear and unambiguous statements.

The study in question, Risk Factors for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in Women Under the Age of 45 Years, actually lists abortion and oral contraceptive use under, “The following known and suspected breast cancer risk factors were examined…”

Lest any seize upon abortion and oral contraceptive use as only being suspected, and not known risk factors, consider the first paragraph of the paper’s Results section.

In the results section of the paper,

“In analyses of all 897 breast cancer cases (subtypes combined), the multivariate-adjusted odds ratios for examined risk factors were consistent with the effects observed in previous studies on younger women. Specifically, older age, family history of breast cancer, earlier menarche age, induced abortion and oral contraceptive use were associated with an increased risk for breast cancer.”

So if Malone is correct in stating that the linkage is nothing new, having been reported before, why hasn’t NCI revised its position paper on the breast cancer-abortion link? Taken at her word, not only are these linkage data not new, but they have been confirmed by Brinton and Malone.

These are some of the several signifiant and disturbing features of this story, all of which undermine the essential trust of the citizens, who fund this research and stand to gain from it, and the scientific community.

Abortion is held out by women as an absolute good for women. If the epidemiological data suggest that abortion harms women, then why are these data being downplayed? It is precisely such a doctrinaire, ideologically driven approach that science and the scientific method are meant to ameliorate for the good of humanity. The a priori assumption that abortion is an absolute good with neither significant physical or psychological sequelae is increasingly being challenged by an emerging body of literature to the contrary.

But scientists are slow to relinquish their orthodoxies, especially those which have become woven into the fabric of the body politic. Nevertheless, the scientific community would be well advised to pull back from this unqualified endorsement of abortion, as its credibility is on the line.

A doctoral degree, especially the research-oriented Ph.D., is the gold standard for any who would perform research. The granting of a Ph.D. is an acceptance of the graduate student as a peer at the highest levels of academia, and carries with it the imprimatur of the scientific community, assuring all that this individual can be trusted to perform and report credible research in an independent and ethical manner without the need for oversight. It is at once a great honor and an awesome responsibility. It is a sacred trust, a covenant.

Betrayal of such trust by a single act of partisan orthodoxy which leads to the denial or suppression of the data and their conclusions forever shatters the trust of one’s peers and the public. Such has been the case with these researchers who have suppressed critical data repeatedly, beginning with the spurious premature interpretations of the data sets on two large prospective studies that led to the infamous NCI and American Cancer Society declarations in 2003 denying a link between breast cancer and abortion. The denial of the plain meaning of their own text, and hewing to the NCI position, despite their own report is an egregious act of politically inspired scientific fraud.

If Brinton and Malone cannot stand by their own words, if they cannot revise the NCI position to one of at least uncertainty, then they have committed the unforgivable sin among Ph.D.’s. They’ve lied.

Women are dying and we need to know why. If NCI and ACS can’t cobble together a panel of honest scientists, the sin upon their heads, and a pox on both of their houses.

The money line from the article: “Political correctness and liberal ideology both cause and aggravate the spread of communicable and sexually transmitted diseases.”

Jill is right. Read her article before proceeding here.

Liberals don’t ‘get it’ when it comes to the prevention of spreading infectious diseases. That’s because, for them, ideology trumps all. Yesterday, I ran the third in a series of articles on the condom controversy, showing the data that indicate pretty conclusively the conclusion that condoms don’t work. But liberals are wed to the sexual revolution, because that’s where their roots are: in the communist and eugenic revolutions of the 20th Century, a point I hope is being underscored by my ongoing expose on Margaret Sanger.

The sexual revolution is key in redefining marriage and family; selling out 2,000 years of Christian Civilization for an orgasm, most not very good ones at that.

But what of this multi-drug resistant TB (MDRTB). While the facts cited by Jill about TB hitching a ride with HIV, the ugly truth is that New York City is ground zero for MDRTB. It’s an interesting story.

Following the national scandal uncovered by young investigative journalist Geraldo Rivera at the Willowbrook State School for the Mentally Retarded in the early 1970’s, the national landscape with regard to the mentally ill began to change. Willowbrook was a residential facility built for 4,000 but housed 6,000 and was called a “snake pit” by Senator Robert Kennedy. The cruelty and depredations there beggared the imagination. See some of the report here. The closure of Willowbrook heralded the age of group homes and day treatment facilities. This was a powerful and positive step forward. Soon, attention focussed on the mental hospitals, teeming with residents.

New York State Governor Hugh Carey facilitated the virtual emptying of the mental hospitals, returning the patients to the community. In cash-strapped New York City, struggling back from the brink of bankruptcy in 1976, and caught in the economic meltdown of the Carter Presidency, there was simply not enough money for adequate police and fire protective services, much less appropriate monitoring of the mentally ill now in the community. Many began to fall through the cracks, and homelessness began growing. Also, one of the programs to suffer was the TB monitoring program. Then, in 1986-1990 the crack cocaine epidemic hit with a vengeance. People lost their jobs and apartments. Overnight, the city was deluged with the newly homeless. Scrambling for a solution, the city opened its vast National Guard Armories, whose parade floors housed thousands of homeless people each on cots eighteen inches apart. TB-infected crack addicts stopped their year-long antibiotic treatment mid-way, creating through natural selection, resistant strains of TB.

To make matters worse, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the organism that causes TB is an airborne pathogen, which spread like wildfire among a homeless population whose immune systems were compromised from drug addiction, malnutrition, and increasingly, HIV acquired through prostitution engaged in to get money for more crack.

It was a combination of good intentions and their unintended consequences, coupled with the financial consequences of liberal elitist profligate spending, and a political establishment that refused to heed the warnings about condom inefficiency and over-reliance that I linked in this post.

The perfect storm.

The result was that New York City became the worlds leading exporter of MDRTB. That, coupled with Planned Parenthood’s relentless advocacy of condom use, with their 15% failure rate, rather than advocating sexual continence in the face of three diseases that travel together in weakened hosts, has led us to this Armageddon.